Wirkus, Faustin E., Jr. Wolk, Charles J., Jr. Carnes, Robert A. King, Robert F. Parker, Larry E. Chapla, Daniel B. Jenkins, Hulen F. Daniel, Ray A. McRoberts, James C. Bearce, Larned V. Jr. The following-named officers of the Marine Corps for permanent appointment to the grade of captain, subject to qualification therefor as provided by law: Kelley, Philip S., Jr. Boudreaux, Sidney J., Jr. Albright, Howard E. Tucker, G. B. Smith, Ellis F. Criger, Frank R. Wall, Caleb N. Ovelgonne, Walter E. Toler, Albert E. That day we are told merited such distinction because it represented not ent upon Thee. Bring us together into an everlasting bond, regardless of color, race, or creed so that we may best work for the welfare of all mankind. Hasten the day when the millennial hope of universal peace will prevail throughout the world with justice and freedom for all people. Amen. THE JOURNAL The Journal of the proceedings of Friday, November 8, 1963, was read and approved. MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A message from the Senate by Mr. McGown, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate had passed without amendment a bill of the House of the following title: H.R. 5244. An act to modify the project on the Mississippi River at Muscatine, Iowa, to permit the use of certain property for public park purposes. The message also announced that the Senate had passed bills of the following titles, in which the concurrence of the House is requested: S. 2032. An act to authorize a study of methods of helping to provide financial assistance to victims of future flood disasters; and S. 2079. An act to provide for the striking of three different medals in commemoration of the Federal Hall National Memorial, Castle Clinton National Monument, and Statue of Liberty National Monument-American Museum of Immigration in New York City, N.Y. LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1964 Mr. STEED. STEED. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the managers on the part of the House may have until midnight tonight to file a conference report on H.R. 6868, a bill making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, and for other purposes. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma? There was no objection. PERMISSION TO FILE A REPORT Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I ask unanimous consent to have until midnight to night to file a certain report. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to Mr. LIBONATI. Mr. Speaker, at a recent luncheon in honor of Sigfrido Ciccotti, eminent Italian journalist and editor of Il Nuova Stampa news agency, the versatile Congressman JOHN DENT, of Pennsylvania, officiated. The Congressmen in attendance were as follows, JoSEPH P. ADDABBO, of New York; SILVIO O. CONTE, of Massachusetts; EMILIO Q. DADDARIO, of Connecticut; DOMINICK V. DANIELS, of New Jersey; ROLAND V. LIBONATI, of Illinois; JOSEPH G. MINISH, of New Jersey; and GEORGE P. MILLER, of California. A number of Congressmen participated in the informal discussion after his interesting talk about Italy's political problems in setting up a government. Mr. Ciccotti, as honored guest of the American Institute of Free Labor Development, sponsored by the U.S. Government, explained in detail the purposes and accomplishments of the organization in South America. He commented that the proposed formation of a coalition government between the Socialist Party with the Christian Democrats and two lesser parties rests upon the solution of several grave problems. The Socialist Party has for 16 years opposed the Christian Democrats. At their recent convention, the delegates voted by a 278,324 to 190,492-57.4 percent-majority to support their party leader Pietro Nenni's position to join the coalition under certain agreementsnamely to continue their Communist connections in the field of trade unions and other levels incidental to their activities. They held to their opposition to the U.S. proposed multilateral nuclear force, but approved NATO participation. At the previous convention 5 months ago he failed to gain party approval and so their leader Nenni is cautious not to further disturb the attitude of the hard core members-carristi-who made up his opposition at the convention. The other member parties to the coalition are confronted with similar problems: Aldo Moro's Christian Democrats260 deputies-Guiseppi Saragat's Social Democrats-33 deputies-and Oranzo Reale's Liberal Republicans-6 deputies-Moro's rightwing is threatening to split away from the Christian Democrats because of the outrageous demands of the Socialists-Cabinet posts-Foreign Affairs, Defense and Interior—with Nenni as Vice Premier. A combination of parties to the right only creation but also unity. This the request of the gentleman from Cali- to form a government with the Conserv teaches us the divine lesson that true goodness and creativity can only come about when the elements of unity and peace shall reign supreme. May the Almighty prosper the hands of our Speaker and the Members of Congress who carry on Thy great work deliberating for the purpose of beneficial creativity and in the interest of unity and peace. Bless, O Heavenly Father, all the people of our country. In our relations with one another, may we ever remember that we are all Thy children equally depend fornia? There was no objection. THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR FREE LABOR DEVELOPMENT Mr. LIBONATI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois? There was no objection. ative Liberal Party and others of the same philosophy would at best be a weak one. The after affects in case this combination establishes a strong government in Italy-for the next 5 years-will have a definite effect on other European nations confronted with the same problems-a left-center government in France, West Germany, and Britain could follow the Italian experiment. The United States is alert to the sensitive situation of its strongest ally-subject to pressures of the Socialist doctrines. Yet to court failure of any agreement with the Socialists may result in a fascistic government of extremists lost to the established democratic principles of the Republic, against NATO, Atlantic Alliance and the multilateral nuclear force-MFL-in accord with their basic goals for neutralism and pacificism. Of the internal problems facing Italy, the most important is inflation-food prices up 40 percent in the last 2 yearsalso the positive trend toward neutralism in world affairs. There is little choice for any other course upon failure to effect a coalition government-another election would mean an increase of perhaps 2 million votes to the left. The last election accounted for 7,700,000 votes-25 percent of those cast-3 million hard core movement protest votes. Four million Socialists of which 12 million were core Communists. The 8 parties among 10 of major 10 of major importance comprising the Italian Chamber of Deputies and their number are as follows: A private team of labor and management, working with U.S. Government approval and support, has brought into being a long-range project to educate and train Latin American labor union leaders and workers in the highest traditions of democracy-the American Institute for Free Labor Development. Conceived in 1957, and taking its present form in 1961, the institute this year will bring 100 trainees in three groups to this country. It hopes also to provide supplementary training in Germany, Italy, and Israel for about 30 of its "graduates" and to expand its corollary program in Latin America. THE GOAL The institute's goal is not restricted to the negative one of keeping communism out of a hemisphere that has observed only too well in Cuba what can happen within the Americas. It is rather to revise a persistent but obsolete image among large sections of the swelling Latin American population-the image of the wolf and the lamb, with management playing the wolf. The truer relationship, as visualized by the executive director of the institute-who knows intimately the people and the main languages of 19 of the 20 countries is that of a "pair of oxen, equally strong, pulling the plow." Serafino Romualdi, the son of an Italian cobbler, feels that this is a picture that can be grasped instantly by the Bolivians, Paraguayans, Ecuadorans, and Hondurans with whom he has dealt for more than 16 years. "And the oxen must be equally strong, and under the guidance of public opinion," he holds. "Only in that way can they do a maximum job and share a maximum yield." Such a metaphor might be less acceptable in the United States. But it is something that tin and wool and quebracho and sugar and oil workers from the Caribbean to Cape Horn can understand. In too often bloody reaction to the oppression of centuries, thousands of these other Americans have in the idea that, in order to improve its lot, labor past narrowed their social philosophy to the must destroy capital. Dictators-Argentina's Juan Peron was one ofthe gaudier exampleswere quick to exploit this mass feeling through the technique of nationalization. Invariably, production went down. Everyone's return fell off, purchasing power shrank, living standards leveled off, and inflation billowed over the land. "With George Meany and the American Institute for Free Labor Development." Mr. Romualdi continued, "I reject the idea that labor must destroy capital. We want to believe that if we succeed in educating a new generation of labor leaders, they will accept the basic philosophy of the American labor movement-that we cooperate with other sectors of the economy for the broadest and at the same time most equitable development of the country." George Meany, president both of the combined AFL-CIO and of the young institute, has followed the latter's progress closely, and in speeches he has stressed its responsibilities to the very concepts of freedom and democracy: "Democracy is impossible without free and strong trade unions. My close association with the institute since its formation convinces me that this is a realistic way to help the trade unions in Latin American insure the growth of democracy * Freedom is not something you go to sleep on; it's something that you fight to preserve. It's something that ties you to your neighbors. Your own freedom is not secure if your neighbor is not free." THE ORIGINAL IDEA * The institute stemmed from a very personal experience. The man involved was Joseph A. Beirne, since 1947 president of the Communications Workers of America, and for 5 years before that, head of its predecessor. In 1957, Beirne was flying over the cordillera en route from Santiago to Buenos Aires. His oxygen supply was working faultily; it was an uncomfortable flight. But somehow, the inhospitable Andean masses below-and sometimes above, on both sidesmade him think of the misery of thousands of those who for centuries had tried to eke sustenance from the great western spine of South America and some of its slopes. He remembered particularly seeing children in the barren fields around Cuzco, and others sleeping huddled together with adults in the slums of Lima. "I suddenly realized that this would never be cleared up," Mr. Beirne recalled recently in Washington, "unless it could be put in the minds of these people to change their outlook, their view of the world." In one word, this meant education. Returning to this country, Mr. Beirne and his union invited 16 Latin American communi cations workers for a 3-months' stay. They spent it taking training courses at the Communications Workers' Educational Center, also known as the Front Royal, Va., Institute. After the visitors got home, they were assisted financially for 9 months by the Postal, Telephone, and Telegraph International. Most of the graduates are still in the labor movement, and some are professionals. The project seemed to have borne fruit. Mr. Beirne was pleased but regarded it as a "drop in the bucket." Looking to an expanded program, in August 1960 he obtained the approval of the AFL-CIO council-and a $20,000 appropriation. FORMATION AND ACHIEVEMENT In May 1961, foundation status was established, and that October, the American Institute for Free Labor Development came into being. It has a labor-management base, but its "initiative and major responsibility," as its prospectus dated January 1963 reiter ates, "stem from the American labor movement." In March 1962, Mr. Beirne asked Serafino Romualdi if he could take on the job of executive director. As Latin American representative of the AFL since 1946, and as a key figure in the organization of the antiCommunist Inter-American Confederation of Labor-Now more often known as ORIT— Mr. Romualdi had a close working knowledge of the field and its human resources. A big boost came when $250,000 in Federal support was obtained from AID under the Alianza para el Progreso. For the fiscal year 1963, Government aid has risen to $350,000. Meanwhile, the Institute hopes to raise $250,000 from labor unions and an equal amount from private sources, which would double their 1962 contributions. Chase Mellen, Jr., widely experienced in the banking world, has taken over the drive for contributions from the nonlabor, nonpublic sector. This includes foundations, corporations, and individuals. But apart from financial backing, the Institute on January 18, 1962, received perhaps its greatest psychological impetus-a letter from President Kennedy to J. Peter Grace, the institute's board chairman. "An independent private organization composed of North and Latin American labor and business leaders, such as the Institute," the President wrote, "should be able to provide much needed assistance in training leaders and workers for socially responsible participation in the development of their countries. I wish every success to your organization." THE YEAR AHEAD Conceived by a labor leader deeply moved by what his own eyes had seen in Peru, backed by the head of the merged American labor federation, welcomed by industrialists and businessmen, the Institute looks toward its most active year. A group of Brazilians begun classes late in January. A second course is planned for mid-May, with participants both from the English-speaking Caribbean area and Spanish-speaking countries. A third course is planned for September, with the total number of trainees in the 1963 Washington program reaching about 100. The board of trustees of the Institute last December unanimously approved a proposal for supplementary training in Germany, Italy, and Israel. During this year, the Institute also is contemplating opening new training centers in Brazil and Argentina, to be run along the lines of the centers already in operation in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Colombia, with financial aid from local institutions. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: SERAFINO ROMUALDI Mr. Romualdi, a former Italian Social Democrat now in his 63d year, was born near Perugia, Italy on November 18, 1900. His father had preceded him to this country, Serafino-everysettling in Scranton, Pa. one calls him by his first name-reached Chicago in 1923 and obtained a job as a linotyper on an Italian-language paper. In May of that year, he was invited to address Italian workers in Milwaukee. The city had a Socialist mayor and Serafino anticipated the same kind of fervid meeting he had often experienced in his homeland. "Instead, it was like a club," he smiled. "There was nothing to indicate that the people were expecting a Socialist revolution, as was being preached to the people in Europe. From that moment began my study of American society and of the American Revolution, the true American Revolution." In 1928, he became acquainted with the philosophy of Matthew Woll, long vice president of the AFL, and often under bitter attack for his willingness to cooperate with management. Serafino, who had regarded Woll as an intellectual stimulant, said, "I wanted to find out why Woll was attacked. And this was my first practical exposure to the AFL philosophy of accepting the free enterprise system and even of cooperating with management when it was a question of promoting the good and welfare of the Nation." He joined David Dubinsky's International Ladies Garment Workers Union in 1933-and ever since has regarded the ILGWU as his "alma mater." Circling back over the course of his own intellectual and philosophical development, he reverts often to the image of the paired oxen in Latin America. It is the image to which he is dedicated as he plans and strives to make the American Institute for Free Labor Development a major influence throughout the Western Hemisphere. The biography of Sigfrido Ciccotti is a reflection of his importance in the fields of activity that he has followed as a pattern of his life. in 1918. In 1921, he joined the Italian Socialist Party and became a reporter for the daily Il Paese. When the Fascists closed Il Paese, Mr. Ciccotti joined the staff of the Socialist Party's Avanti. During this period he also studied at the University of Rome. His early career was devoted to strong opposition to fascism. He was arrested repeatedly and twice wounded by Fascist gunfire. In 1926, he was sentenced to 5 years' con finement on the island of Lampedusa, where his continued efforts caused him in 1927 to be indicted for attempted armed insurrection against the Fascist government. After waiting 10 months in the Ucciardone jail at Palermo, Mr. Ciccotti was acquitted, but continued to be confined on the islands of Ustica and Ponza. The Fascists granted him parole in 1929, whereupon he escaped to France and went to Argentina the following year. He returned to Italy in 1946. In January 1947, Mr. Ciccotti left the Italian Socialist Party in protest against the pro-Communist policy of the Nenni leadership. He joined Giuseppe Saragat in founding the Democratic Socialist Party, and was appointed to the editorial staff of the party's organ Giustizia. He also served as a member of the party's central and executive committees. As editor of Nuova Stampa, Mr. Ciccotti is a regular contributor to a number of magazines, including Giustizia, the Italian language organ of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union (ILGWU), and the New Leader. TIRED OF IT ALL Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and include extraneous matter. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mississippi? There was no objection. Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, although the House acted some time ago on the President's foreign aid bill, the issue is still very much alive and we shall no doubt have another opportunity to consider it. This, of course, is due to the fact that the Senate is not likely to concur with the House bill and a conference will be necessary, and following that, consideration of the conference report by the full House. The House very wisely reduced the administration's request from $4.4 to $3.5 billion, and for this small token I believe the American taxpayers are grateful. We might have acted even more wisely and the taxpayers would have been even more grateful, had we reduced it further. In my opinion, it ought to be terminated altogether. Over the past 17 years we have expended some $120 billions for foreign aid. This huge dollar figure, we must remem ber, is but a measurement of our Nation's natural resources and our people's productivity which has been disposed of in this manner. Some 100 nations, including several Communist or Communist-dominated nations, are more or less permanently on Uncle Sam's dole. It is a fact that the keystone of our foreign policy for all the years since the close of World War II has been foreign aid. This, I would remind you, is nothing more than a secondhand version of the old, discredited "dollar diplomacy." Neither of our political parties has had a new idea in foreign policy in all these years. This is a sad commentary on the intellectual productivity of our political parties. So far as I can detect, the only originality that has been shown by our foreign policy experts, under the past three administrations, has been in finding new and ingenious ways to spend foreign aid money. Foreign policy has become truly bipartisan; neither party has had a new idea in 20 years. Mr. Speaker, the Washington Sunday Star of November 10 carried an editorial which I believe truly reflects the present thinking and temper of the American people in this regard. It follows: TIRED OF IT ALL President Kennedy, in accepting a distinguished service award from a Protestant group, got in the following plug for his foreign aid program: "I think the American people are willing to shoulder this burden. *** Some say they are tiring of this task, or tired of world problems, or tired of hearing those who receive our aid disagree with our diplomacy. But what kind of spirit is that? Are we tired of living in a free world? Do we expect to make it over in our own image? Are we going to quit now because there are problems not yet solved?" The implication here is that the American people (who have been lugging the foreign aid load for 17 years) are ready, willing, and happy to keep on lugging it. Some other President, 17 years in the future, may be saying pretty much the same thing. But we dissent. It is our belief that the American people, or most of them, are sick and tired of "foreign aid." They are fed up with doling out billions in American tax dollars to people who couldn't care less about what we in this country like to speak of as "the American way of life." They are bored to tears with the threadbare argument that the Communists will take over the world unless we pay the bills for countries which don't know or care which team they are playing on, assuming that they are willing to play on any team. Mr. Khrushchev can't even feed his own people. Why not let him try this foreign aid load for size? To sum up, we think the American people, as far as foreign aid is concerned, have just about had it. And we haven't the slightest doubt that it is this more than anything else which underlies the attitude of Congressan attitude which the President either can't or won't understand. This Congress, of course, will pass a foreign aid bill. But the appropriation will be sharply cut back. And it should be. The 88th Congress will go down in history (with applause) if it begins the quick phasing out of foreign aid. And we do not believe that the rest of the world, without the Yankee dollar, will go either to pot or to the Communists. "IN GOD WE TRUST" Mr. ASHMORE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Carolina? There was no objection. Mr. ASHMORE. Mr. Speaker, on June 25, 1963, I introduced H.R. 7252 in the House of Representatives. The bill was subsequently referred to the Committee on Public Works and views were requested from the Architect of the Capitol concerning the requirements of the bill which are to inscribe the words, "In God We Trust" above the bench of the Supreme Court in gold letters of sufficient size to make the words legible throughout the courtroom. The Architect has charge of the structural and mechanical care of the Supreme Court Building subject to the approval of the Chief Justice of the United States. Upon request for the views of the Chief Justice, the Architect of the Capitol received a letter dated October 28, 1963, and signed by Chief Justice Warren. I quote from that let ter: After consulting with all the members of the Court, I advise you that I would not approve the bills or the inscription referred to therein. The Supreme Court Building and particularly the courtroom were designed by outstanding architects and were decorated with an eye to beauty and symmetry consistent with the purpose for which the building was to be devoted. It is believed that ornamentation other than that provided in the original plans would detract from the total concept of the building. On other occasions, people have suggested patriotic and religious inscriptions for the courtroom, but it has always been the view of the members of our Court then sitting that no changes in the decor of the courtroom should be made. This has been true regardless of the significance of the language or its relevance to patriotic or religious sentiment. I believe that the suggestion contained in these bills should be no exception to our previous views. Mr. Speaker, the language and tone of this letter indicate much more than a concern for "beauty and symmetry." The tone is most indicative that the Supreme Court would be made painfully aware of the fact that there is an authority higher than that of the Supreme Court of these United States. I realize that to some few people in this country any such idea is almost tantamount to treason. But when we reach the point where we must choose between "beauty and symmetry," and the simple recognition of God, then the choice must inevitably be, God. The fact that a Chaplain has been chosen for both Houses of Congress suggests that a majority of the people's representatives approve of the recognition of God and the need to worship Him. This is also endorsed by the fact that the phrase "In God We Trust" appears above your very chair, Mr. Speaker, and likewise above the door facing the President of the Senate. The phrase appears on our coins, and recognition is given the Deity in the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag, much to the dismay of an atheistic minority of our population. Our religious heritage demands that we choose this simple acknowledgment of the Supreme Being. Architectural beauty is inconsequential when compared to the fundamental expression of trust in our Creator. We have no cause to worship architectural symmetry or to appease atheists and superintellectuals. Moreover, there is no logic whatsoever in the flimsy claim that these four words of enduring faith would mar the abstract beauty of the walls of the Supreme Court Building. The time has arrived to make a decision: Shall we affirm our faith in God by inscribing this divine phrase above the bench of the Supreme Court, or shall we shun God aside? It is inconceivable that any Member of the Senate, House of Representatives, or other high officials of this country could object to the inscription of this simple phrase upon any public building of our Government. "IN GOD WE TRUST" Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the house for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia? There was no objection. Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. ASHMORE] has just disclosed a very remarkable situation. He introduced a bill, a very simple bill; just to put "In God We Trust" on the frieze in the Supreme Court chamber, just as we have it in the House, just as we have it in the Senate, just as it is the motto of this Nation. The Supreme Court says, No, you shall not put "In God We Trust" on the frieze in the Supreme Court chamber. Mr. Speaker, where are we going? We have a bill pending. I hope that this House will rise up in its wrath and demand the passage of that bill, at least the opportunity to vote upon it in the House. I had always been under the impression that the Federal buildings belonged to the people of the United States. Or do they belong to the Chief Justice? That question can be decided in this House and in the other body. Let us do it. CIX- -1361 CONGRESSMAN HALLECK AND THE BACKPEDALING ON COMMUNIST CIVIL RIGHTS BILL Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois? There was no objection. SALE TERMS Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD and include extraneous matter. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois? There was no objection. Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, the administration is doing a fancy job of backpedaling on policies for selling grain to the Communist bloc countries. Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, a member of the other body who represents the State of Georgia, yesterday launched a verbal attack upon the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from InOn October 11, the Department of diana [Mr. HALLECK], accusing him of being used by the President and the At- Commerce bulletin announced that all torney General in behalf of what the subsidized and price supported commodGeorgia Senator termed a socialistic civilities would have to be shipped in U.S. bottoms. It even spelled this out, listing rights bill. corn, grain sorghums, and closed with In a way, I am glad the Senator spoke with such unrestrained feeling. It gives me the welcome opportunity to rise in behalf of the leader of my party, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HALLECK). Support of civil rights legislation is nothing new for Republicans. It all began with Abraham Lincoln, and the effort has been constant ever since. Lincoln did not free the slaves to win votes. He did it because it was right. The gentleman from Indiana, CHARLES HALLECK, did not cooperate in prying a civil rights bill from the Judiciary Committee in order to win votes. No one can wisely play politics with an issue as fundamental, as seething, as complex, and damental, as seething, as complex, and awesome as civil rights. Not even a Solomon could figure the political angles with assurance. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HALLECK], acted in behalf of civil rights HALLECK], acted in behalf of civil rights because to do so was right. He acted in the great tradition of Lincoln, and the party leadership that followed. Civil rights a socialistic trend? If so, the dictionaries and history books are outdated and must be rewritten. If there is one single burden which our Federal Government must properly shoulder, it is the cause of equal justice, the exaltation of the individual citizen, regardless of race, creed, or station in life, and the protection of his rights and liberties. This burden was shouldered the moment our great republic was born. It has been carried proudly and properly through the years by all Republican leaders. The Senator inadvertently did the Nation a great service in his bitter attack on the House minority. He exploded in plain view of everyone the myth that Southern Democrats and Republicans are joined in a coalition. If it ever existed in the past, it certainly has not in my 3 years in the House. The so-called conservative coalition is a convenient facade which Democrats from the South have used effectively to get reelected. I can count the truly conservative Democrats in the House on the fingers of one hand. If the Senator's vitriol serves to inform Southern voters that the conservative coalition is really the phoniest of phonies, then it will indeed have been a nies, then it will indeed have been a strange but wondrous contribution. the familiar "etc." Commerce issued another bulletin and On October 18, the Department of cleverly buried in the third paragraph the real meat of the statement. It said wheat and flour would have to be shipped in U.S. bottoms, but exempted other commodities. Of course this opened the gate wide enough to let through the corn sale to Hungary. Last Friday the Commerce Department announced that export licenses would be issued for wheat sales to Communist bloc nations, provided that half the shipment was in U.S. bottoms. This means that half the shipments can be in foreign bottoms, and the other half in U.S. bottoms, with the interesting qualification "if available." Backpedaling has also occurred in the financing of grain sales to the Communist bloc. The administration insisted it would have no part in Government-toGovernment agreements, and no Government credit. Any sales would be handled and financed through the private trade. How the administration is engaged in backpedaling through the financing problems is recounted in this article by Eliot Janeway, appearing on the financial page of yesterday's Washington Evening Star: SOVIET WHEAT DEAL OR NOT, NEGOTIATIONS ARE MILESTONES (By Eliot Janeway) NEW YORK.-Sometimes a deal which doesn't come off can make more history than one which does. Witness the busted deal over Britain's application to join the Common Market. Washingtons' negotiation with Moscow, as the result of which we either will or will not manage to unload most of our grain surplus, could be another case in point. Whether the deal is finally made or not, the negotiations looks like a milestone in the economic history of the East-West competition. This will be true no matter how large or small-or sustained-any eventual grain movement across the Iron Curtain may be. The reason is that the grain negotiations have precipitated a direct government-togovernment bargaining confrontation in three major marketplaces-the actual grain markets, the money market and the marine freight market. There's no other way to do business with the Russians-if that is what we mean to do-than on a direct government-to-government basis. Not even the largest corporations can bargain as equals with the Soviet Government when it's an anxious buyer; and certainly, no private grain dealers can hope to. President Kennedy's first move toward the bargaining table in the grain negotiations didn't recognize this fact of life. He tried to finesse a direct government-to-government confrontation. Instead, he made an attempt to route the Russian bid or the American offer whichever the history books end up calling it through the private U.S. grain export trade. This gambit didn't work. Mr. Kennedy quickly found that the alternative to letting the deal drop was to put the Government all the way into it-as a direct participant. By this time the publicity had got out of hand, and the buildup was too big to let the opportunity go. So now our Government is trying to trade out at least a preliminary deal in direct bargaining with the Russian Government. So far two important obstacles have had to be faced. The nut which has to be cracked first is the high cost of American shipping: It is ironic that hard, market-oriented Soviet bargaining has focused on the uneconomic consequences of U.S. labor practices. The problem still waiting in the wings is credit: How is the U.S. Government to underwrite terms to Moscow with an election year coming up? Of these two obstacles, the touchiest one on our side of the bargaining table is the one we haven't yet faced up to-that of Government-underwritten credit for the Russians. And, make no mistake about it, any credit terms extended to the Russians will have to be Government-underwritten, not merely because the risk is too big for the grain trade to carry but because the banks know that Russia is too big a risk for them to carry. No matter how you slice it, the problem gets back to the government-to-government relationship. Credit for Moscow is an obvi ous hot potato for any administration at any time, and hotter than usual for this one now. Just because the issue of credit terms looms as so tough for us, it's surprising that we have been so quick to offer concessions on the shipping issue, where the market is going our way. The Russians have shown them selves to be great respecters of authority of the market; and, the world over, the market for shipping is on the rise. Thus, during the short period since the Soviets have turned grain buyers and since the Russians have forced the Chinese to charter ships on their own, the asking price for liberty ships in London has doubled; and the reserve of dry cargo tramps not in use has fallen to just 2 percent. The more grain the Soviets buy outside the United States, the higher freight rates outside the United States will rise; and the less uneconomic the cost of U.S. shipping will become. This is where we should sit tight and take advantage of the chance to bargain from strength. HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THE COMMUNISTS? Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? There was no objection. Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Speaker, since I spoke critically last week of the pilgrimage of the American businessmen to the Kremlin, I think I should call to the attention of the House a revealing sequel to that visit. An Associated Press report from West Berlin attributes this comment to Mr. Keith Funston, president of the New York Stock Exchange, one of the 20-odd businessmen accorded two interviews with Khrushchev: What shocked me most about the meeting [with Khrushchev] was the complete disregard for facts. I went away with a sense of frustration. How do you deal with people who lie to you and to whom facts mean nothing. I have no intention of being critical of Mr. Funston, particularly since he now says that we must "resolve not to give them-the Russians-an inch anywhere." I suspect that he has been no more naive about doing business with the Communists than a great many other Americans and American business men. Nevertheless, one cannot help wondering where these Americans have been for the last 40 years or so. Back in 1920, Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby rejected proposals for diplomatic recognition of Soviet Russia on the grounds that: The existing regime in Russia is based upon the negation of every principle of honor and good faith. Mr. Colby also charged that leaders of that regime "have frequently and openly boasted that they are willing to sign agreements and undertaking with foreign powers while not having the slightest intention of observing such undertaking. Furthermore, Lenin long ago declared that "promises are like piecrust, made to be broken," and Stalin said that "words are one thing, actions another. Sincere diplomacy is no more possible than dry water or iron wood." I am reminded of an oft-repeated comment of a former distinguished colleague of ours, Dr. Walter Judd, of Minleague of ours, Dr. Walter Judd, of Minnesota. He has frequently pointed out that Americans can learn more about Soviet Russia and international communism by a half day's visit to the library than by a trip to Moscow. Evidently Mr. Funston has learned the hard way. Incidentally, the answer to Mr. Funston's question, born of his current disillusionment, "How do you deal with people who lie to you?" is very simple. You do not. CLEAN UP WASHINGTON MESS Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa? There was no objection. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, in the November 1, 1963, issue of the New York Times, Mr. James Reston, Washington correspondent for that newspaper, writes a searching article on the "resignation" of Secretary of the Navy Fred Korth and the "Bobby" Baker case. Reston points to "the loose system in Washington that encourages personal improprieties. It is the system of trad ing favors and using influence and yachts for the purpose that is the cause of the trouble." Korth Says Reston wasn't crooked; he was morally insensitive and stupid, but the President insists Korth wasn't fired, which raises the question: Why not? The "Bobby Baker" case Says Reston illustrates the same casual attitude toward charges of improper conduct. The Times article follows: WASHINGTON.-October 31.-There is a mess in Washington again, and very little evidence that either the White House or the Congress is going to do very much to clean it up. The improprieties of Secretary of the Navy Korth in carrying on his private business on Navy stationery and on his official yacht are widely condemned in the Capital, but he will be given an honorable farewell by the top row. And he leaves with the assurances and admirals of the Navy when he leaves tomoreven praises of the President himself. This is the man who wrote to his former and future associate, G. E. Homstrom, at the Continental National Bank of Fort Worth about his plans to "have a little party aboard the Sequoia (the Navy Secretary's official yacht) primarily for my Texas friends. "I am just wondering," Secretary Korth's 1962, letter of August 13, letter continued, "whether you and some of my other friends at the Continental may be coming through; likewise if you have some extra good customers that it would be nice to have." KENNEDY'S BLESSING This and much more evidence of misuse of the Secretary of the Navy's office came to thereafter Korth resigned, but the President the attention of the Congress, and shortly took the line today that the Secretary had not acted improperly and, while vaguely regretting his letter-writing praised his Navy the Nation's Secretary's contribution to security. The "Bobby Baker" case illustrates the same casual attitude toward charges of imsecretary to the Democratic majority in the proper conduct. Ever since Baker, former Senate, resigned after charges that he was using his position to amass a private fortune on the side, this city has been full of ugly rumors about illicit relations between Baker's girl friends and prominent Senators and officials in the administration. Every vigilant newspaper office in Washington has a list of names of those implicated with Baker and his lobbying friends and his girls. And the gossip feeds on itself to such an extent that it has already poisoned the atmosphere of the whole Government. The only way to deal with this kind of material, much of it deeply disturbing and a lot more of it probably malicious trash, is to investigate it thoroughly, objectively, and in private. This may yet be done. It is in the hands of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, but that committee is operating under a Senate resolution which instructs it to look into the conduct only of Senate employees and former employees (not Senators), and it is refusing to provide outside legal counsel for both the Democratic majority and the Republican minority of the committee. LACK OF CONFIDENCE The result is that there is absolutely no confidence here that the Rules Committee will really investigate their own Senate colleagues or that the permanent Senate em |